WaPo: Hey, did you hear what that Mormon militia did 150 years ago?

posted at 6:05 pm on May 21, 2012 by Allahpundit

The best part of this story is their pretext for running it, the supposedly real possibility that something that happened between Mormons and Christians 150 years ago might cause Romney to lose … Arkansas. The same state where Obama’s struggling to win the Democratic primary.

I’ve seen some impressive concern-trolling in my day, but concern-trolling and Mormon-baiting in the same piece is bravura stuff. Alternate headline: “Mitt Romney, terrorist spawn?”

On Sept. 11, 1857, a wagon train from this part of Arkansas met with a gruesome fate in Utah, where most of the travelers were slaughtered by a Mormon militia in an episode known as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Hundreds of the victims’ descendants still populate these hills and commemorate the killings, which they have come to call “the first 9/11.”…

“There have been Fancher family reunions for 150 years, and the massacre comes up at every one of them,” said Scott Fancher, 58, who traces his lineage back to 26 members of the wagon train, which was known as the Fancher-Baker party. “The more whiskey we drunk, the more resentful we got.”

There aren’t many places in America more likely to be suspicious of Mormonism — and potentially more problematic for Mitt Romney, who is seeking to become the country’s first Mormon president. Not only do many here retain a personal antipathy toward the religion and its followers, but they also tend to be Christian evangelicals, many of whom view Mormonism as a cult.

And yet, there is scant evidence that Romney’s religion is making much difference in how voters here are thinking about the presidential election and whether they are willing to back the former Massachusetts governor.

I take it back. Apparently the story’s about how there isn’t a possibility of Romney losing the state, in which case I guess the “news angle” here, such as it is, is that maybe there should be a possibility given how terrible the incident with the militia was. All we need now is a segment tomorrow on MSNBC about how “people are talking” about the 1857 Mormon militia raid and this latest distraction-of-the-day dumpster-dive news cycle will be complete.

Go read John Nolte on the Rev. Wright double standard and Guy Benson on why Axelrod is so comfortable in saying that Romney’s faith should be off-limits. Of course it’s off-limits for the campaign: The media will make an issue of Romney’s faith on the campaign’s behalf by treating it as “news.” Exit question: Am I right in thinking that WaPo resorts to this sort of decades-old (or centuries-old, in this case) character attack on Republicans more often than, say, the NYT does? That’s not to absolve the Times — the 2008 hit piece on McCain and his non-affair with a lobbyist is legendary — but my sense is that it happens more often with WaPo. They obsessed over Bob McDonnell’s master’s thesis, they hit Perry for the rock with the racial slur on property his family didn’t even own, they went after Romney a few weeks ago for forcibly cutting a kid’s hair 50 years ago, and now they’re exploring whether Romney will be somehow held culpable for the “Mormon 9/11″ from the 19th century or whatever. I have no way of quantifying how many pieces WaPo has run like this versus how many the Times has run, but my hunch is that you’ll find more from the former than the latter. Maybe Newsbusters or the MRC or some other media watchdog has stats.

Update: Meanwhile, it’s starting to look like Obama’s Super PAC might not hold on to that Bill Maher check for much longer:

Maher, a major donor to a super PAC backing Obama, had tweeted “Why even listen to #MittRomney on foreign policy? His entire FP experience is 2 yrs trying to brow-beat Frenchmen into joining his cult.” The former Massachusetts governor spent two years in France as a missionary.

“Attacking a candidate’s religion is out of bounds, and our campaign will not engage in it, and we don’t think others should either,” campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith told Yahoo News by email.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

remember former BYU running back Ronney Jenkins. he got expelled back in 1999 for pre maritial sex. his girlfriend happened to be white. Jenkins said race played a factor. interesting history with people of color at byu.

gemini on May 21, 2012 at 7:10 PM

It’s also common for white students to get expelled for premarital sex at Mormon colleges. It’s in the code of honor that they volntarily sign when they choose to enroll.

Mockingjay on May 21, 2012 at 7:15 PM

So what you are saying is that someone broke their contract and was punished for it? And then attempted to play the race card?

And let’s not forget those fun loving Democrats Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren with their majorities in Congress who forced Native Americans down the Trail of Tears — along with Black slaves. I imagine there will never be another vote cast by a fair-minded liberal for a Dem ever again.

Is this the kind of paranoia we’re going to have to deal with until November? Any media product that doesn’t describe the Mormon faith in the warm, fuzzy tones is automatically the result of a shadowy media conspiracy. Please, give us a break. The article was an interesting angle on the inherent friction between evangelicals and Mormons, in a year when the Republican primaries made religion a major issue.

Whew! About time we went back to the 1850′s and 1860′s. I thought African Americans were NEVER going to give the Republican Party credit for that Emancipation thingy.

TheMagnanimousMan on May 21, 2012 at 7:33 PM

The did, of course, until, oh, 1960, when the Kennedy brothers worked to get Martin Luther King sprung from a Georgia jail, and 1964, when the Republican Party nominated someone who voted against the Civil Rights act and 1968, when Nixon used an admittedly (by his chief strategist and a GOP chairman) racist strategy to try to steal away the “solid South” from the Democrats.

The tu qouque argument being employed here by Resist We Much is standard whenever Mormons are confronted with uncomfortable truths about their history and doctrines. Always heaping scorn upon another party rather than owning up to the facts.

First of all, I am not a Mormon. Secondly, it was you, who brought up the “Well, you did it, too” shyt. I didn’t even address you.

If you think legal extermination orders FOR ANY AMERICANS ARE FINE, THEN YOU ARE BLOODY, FVCKING NUTS.

The fact is that Brigham Young ordered the slaughter of those Americans as revenge for perceived indignities that the Mormons suffered earlier in Missouri. It’s revealing that Mormons still today refuse to accept responsibility for the evil committed by their forbears. Still blaming the victims.

We have a Constitution and a legal system. If certain Mormons had committed crimes, then they should have been arrested, prosecuted, and punished. You are missing the point:

EXECUTIVE ORDER 44 WAS THE FIRST AND LAST LEGAL EXTERMINATION ORDER EVER ISSUED FOR A GROUP OF AMERICAN CITIZENS — THOSE CITIZENS INCLUDED INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN.

And no, the enmity felt by the Mormons toward Americans had nothing to do with slavery. You can attempt to rewrite the past if you can’t live up to it, but just know that some of us are paying attention.

In Missouri, it sure as hell did.

And Resist We Much, it’s not necessary for you to defend the crimes committed by Joseph Smith and his followers by comparing the United States to NAZI Germany- thereby implying that their actions were justifiable resistance to a Fascist state.

Listen up, asshat, the Nazis murdered my great-great-aunt and her children in a concentration camp for one reason: THEY WERE JEWS.

Missouri Executive Order 44 allowed for the extermination of American citizens for one reason: THEY WERE MORMONS.

1857, you say? Why I heard that just about 6 or 7 years later a bunch of guys from Ohio, Illinois, and bunch of other places up north got together and went and burned down Atlanta, Richmond, and a whole bunch of other places. Killed a whole lot more folks than them mormon boys did, too. Ever hear anything ’bout that?

of course some of those Arkansas and Missouri boys got their dander up and went and burned down Lawrence, Kansas ’bout that time, too. Kinda seems like there was jes’ a whole bunch of that goin’ round back in them days.

No, Del, the responsibility Brigham Young bears for the massacre of those innocent Americans is called into question by Mormon apologists. And you can see them right here on this thread still blaming Americans and the United States for the crimes of Joseph Smith and the Mormons committed against them.

Still trying to lay the blame on “mobs” of intolerant, racist American teabaggers when when the reason for the trouble was the fanaticism and intolerance of Joseph Smith and his disciples. Sometimes the past is the past and it’s best to move on. But the reason that the past matters in this instance is that the Mormons still refuse to live up to it. Still on some level see the United Stats as a foreign entity, and Americans as foreigners or outsiders with a history persecuting them. Now they want to elevate one of their own to rule over a nation that they bear resentment against and one that they still have not settled accounts with.

This is all part of The Vetting. If the Republican establishment refuses to vet it’s hand-picked candidate, and the lick-spittle Rinolist “Conservative” blogoshpere falls in line, that’s no reason that we can’t vet him ourselves.

I doubt that Barry would care to have Granpa’s Mau Mau days examined.
It was a bloody era in Kenya’s history. Perhaps we need to know how many of his fellow tribesmen Grandpa bumped off. Then maybe take a look at the blood oaths. Maybe the cannabalism?

So now, according to Captain Distraction’s lackeys in the soon-to-be-but-a-memory print news media, atrocities committed by members of the Mormon church a century and a half ago are more newsworthy – and WAY more indicative of one’s qualifications to occupy the Oval Office – than atrocities committed by the current administration a YEAR and a half ago (which resulted in the murders of American law enforcement officials).

The did, of course, until, oh, 1960, when the Kennedy brothers worked to get Martin Luther King sprung from a Georgia jail

Care to tell us why John F Kennedy, LBJ and a host of other Democrats voted AGAINST Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Act of 1957?

Care to explain:

Why did President Kennedy fire Harris Wofford as his Special Assistant for Civil Rights and chairman of the Subcabinet Group on Civil Rights in 1962?

Why did Attorney General Robert F Kennedy release a statement criticising the Freedom Marchers?

In an interview with Anthony Lewis on 4 December 1964, why did Robert F Kennedy say this about Martin Luther King, his leadership, and the civil rights’ movement of non-violence:

“[T]here was a lot of feeling that the Negroes didn’t know exactly what they wanted and that they were not very well led”.

“Negroes… were traditionally Democratic; but they had reservations about Senator Kennedy and they didn’t think badly of Nixon.”

– Robert F Kennedy, 4 December 1964

“We weren’t thinking of the Negroes in Mississippi or Alabama – what should be done for them.”

– Robert F Kennedy, 4 December 1964

and 1964, when the Republican Party nominated someone who voted against the Civil Rights act

The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act never would have passed without the votes of the GOP, which voted for both in greater percentages than did the Democrats.

and 1968, when Nixon used an admittedly (by his chief strategist and a GOP chairman) racist strategy to try to steal away the “solid South” from the Democrats.

LOL! They didn’t need to run a “racist strategy.” That’s what Democrats claim because it is an easy excuse. It is also wrong.

Instead of looking at race, you should look at who the next two Democrat candidates were for POTUS: Humphrey and McGovern. The South was/is CONSERVATIVE. It was never going to vote for Liberal peaceniks. Jimmy Carter won the ENTIRE South in 1976. Clinton won Louisiana, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Kentucky in 1992. He won all of those except Georgia, which he swapped for Florida, in 1996.

Since the 1960s, there have been more Democrat governors in the South than Republicans and more Democratic legislatures. As I said, the South is CONSERVATIVE. It is not LIBERAL. It voted for CONSERVATIVE Democrats. It was never going to support Northern Liberals like Mario Cuomo, Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, Barack Obama, etc. It has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with philosophy.

Congressman Tim Scott beat Strom Thurmond’s son, a white guy, and became the first black Republican Representative from South Carolina in 114 years. He was elected on his character not the colour of his skin.

Anyone, who believes that the South was going to go Liberal along with the rest of the Democratic party, is truly too stupid to be consuming natural resources.

Speaking of things that happened about 150 years ago:
“….April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no…”

Tell us again about what happened next-US Attorney General Bobby Kennedy had MLK’s phone tapped.

MLK-

Del Dolemonte on May 21, 2012 at 8:12 PM

I believe FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was the lead on that. Bobby should have shut him down but he didn’t.

On the other hand, The Kennedys’ intervention on behalf of MLK was real, and was — in a bit of excellent political strategy — widely publicized in black churches the Sunday before the election. Word got to the targeted voters but — in those per-internet days — did not leak to the racists who habitually voted Democratic but were suspicious of a Yankee Catholic.

Did you know that both of the Kennedy brothers were against MLK’s marches? They wanted to work with the Southern Democrats and unions to bring about change through the law and understanding. They didn’t really want the upheaval and turmoil of the civil rights movement. Their position was why Kennedy fired Harris Wofford.

I will give RFK credit. He learned a lot about the plight of African-Americans in his final two years as AG and then as Senator, especially when he went on his poverty tour. The man that was running for POTUS in 1968 was not the same man — as far as race goes — that became AG in 1961.

Did you know that both of the Kennedy brothers were against MLK’s marches? They wanted to work with the Southern Democrats and unions to bring about change through the law and understanding. They didn’t really want the upheaval and turmoil of the civil rights movement. Their position was why Kennedy fired Harris Wofford.

I will give RFK credit. He learned a lot about the plight of African-Americans in his final two years as AG and then as Senator, especially when he went on his poverty tour. The man that was running for POTUS in 1968 was not the same man — as far as race goes — that became AG in 1961.

Resist We Much on May 21, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Yes I did. It was not their finest moment — they were too politically cautious. They looked at the political calculus instead of the moral — and Constitutional — calculus.

the Kennedy brothers worked to get Martin Luther King sprung from a Georgia jail

I just lost a long post in response to this. I will shorten it by saying that Georgia was under the control of a Dem Governor and General Assembly at the time. Not sure how this is some kind of indictment of Repubs.

Nixon was only able to cynically use race because Dems created the system of segregation and racial intolerance that persisted in the South. Nixon ain’t exactly cheered by modern Repubs. Goldwater was the one who finally forced his hand.

As for Goldwater, do you think African Americans even know who the guy is? He had voted for every single iteration of the CRA prior to the final version that went too far for his libertarian-leaning convictions. Besides, you think the senatorial vote of a 1964 presidential candidate outweighs the Dem excesses of the previous 125 years? Give me a break.

Anyway, you walk right into my point. We go back to old grievances of people and movements without the benefit of crediting the same of the changes they make over time? Romney is responsible for things that happened 160 years ago? If Dems have changed for the better after a frankly despicable history, then in your mind Repubs are not given the same consideration? And I say that only for argument’s sake because I think that Dems still play shameless racial politics. Obama is chief among them.

I wonder if the Washington Post will run a story on Missouri Executive Order 44 signed by Democrat Governor Lilburn Boggs in 1838? Bet not.

From EO44:

“…the Mormons (innocent men, women, and children) must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description.”

Mormons are the only Americans, as a group, to ever be the subject of a legal extermination order. It wasn’t until Republican Governor Kit Bond was elected that the order was repealed in 1976.

Resist We Much on May 21, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Probably not good to bring this up in a thread about a massacre committed by Mormons less than a decade later.

Any idea what their “outrages” that were “beyond all description” were? It seems they thought they were being provoked somehow…

I’m just saying, if you want to leave the past buried, don’t bring it up yourself.

Yes I did. It was not their finest moment — they were too politically cautious. They looked at the political calculus instead of the moral — and Constitutional — calculus.

urban elitist on May 21, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Well, I am glad to see you admit it. It’s funny how Democrats never talk about the chequered past of Liberals on civil rights. All that I ever hear is “Well, they were Democrats and they changed parties and became Republicans.” Actually, with the exception of Strom Thurmond, none of the Democratic Senators that voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 became Republicans.

The whole “Southern Strategy” thing is much ado about nothing more than BS. Were there racists in the South? Yes. Were there racists in the North? Yes. In fact, I believed that some of the worst busing incidents occurred in the North. It is easy for Democrats to claim that they lost the South over civil race, but it is just not true. They lost the South when they went with loons like Humphrey and McGovern. When they ran Carter (1976) and Clinton, they did very well in the South. Carter won the ENTIRE South a mere 8 years after Nixon allegedly created the “Southern Strategy” to “steal” the South from the Democrats f-o-r-e-v-e-r.

Why does Romney get skewered for his Mormonism, but Reid gets a pass for his? Why does Romney have to answer for racism in the Mormon church, but Democratic Senators Harry Reid and Tom Udall do not? Why is Mitt Romney called a racist, but the Kennedy brothers aren’t? Romney’s father marched to integrate neighbourhoods. MLK thought that he would make a very good POTUS. George Romney was at his funeral.

I am a big girl and understand that politics ain’t beanball, but when people start screaming about fairness, then I have to hold them to their own standards.

They obsessed over Bob McDonnell’s master’s thesis, they hit Perry for the rock with the racial slur on property his family didn’t even own, they went after Romney a few weeks ago for forcibly cutting a kid’s hair 50 years ago, and now they’re exploring whether Romney will be somehow held culpable for the “Mormon 9/11″ from the 19th century or whatever.

But pay no attention to the fact that Obama allowed his own bio to say “born in Kenya” from 1991 until after he started his Presidential campaign in 2007. It is implausible to think that the narcissistic Obama was not aware of what his own bio said for 16 years.

This is a discussion that should have happened during the nomination process. For Americans to elect a Mormon to the Presidency, a high priest of the faith descending directly from one of it’s first apostles no less, is a singular occurrence.

Unprecedented

There’s a whole lot to be discussed about this. I mean, every time a non-White or non-Christian gets elevated to some position of power, we’re told it’s reason to celebrate. With Obama we were celebrating a “post-racial America”, now with Romney we would be celebrating a post-Christian America. This is something that we’re supposed to cheer.

Yet we haven’t even talked about it. The GOP has hidden from this issue, and made sure it was never aired during the process. Now the White House and the State Media is starting in on this and it’s going to leave a mark. Anyone could have predicted this, yet the GOP is acting shocked and dismayed that they would go there.

Maybe if our “Conservative” media outlets had spent some time actually vetting Romney rather than trumpeting his inevitability, we wouldn’t be here now.

As it is now, it seems we’ll be stuck between two extremes- we re-elect a two-faced, shameless liar descended from non-Christian Kenyan polygamists or we elect a shameless, two-faced liar descended from non-Christian Mexican Polygamists.

I just lost a long post in response to this. I will shorten it by saying that Georgia was under the control of a Dem Governor and General Assembly at the time. Not sure how this is some kind of indictment of Repubs.

It’s not. It was an explanation of how the Republicans began to lose the black vote at the presidential — and ultimately, every — level.

Nixon was only able to cynically use race because Dems created the system of segregation and racial intolerance that persisted in the South. Nixon ain’t exactly cheered by modern Repubs. Goldwater was the one who finally forced his hand.

So you admit that Nixon played racist politics. And Goldwater voted with the racist Dems on civil rights.

As for Goldwater, do you think African Americans even know who the guy is? He had voted for every single iteration of the CRA prior to the final version that went too far for his libertarian-leaning convictions. Besides, you think the senatorial vote of a 1964 presidential candidate outweighs the Dem excesses of the previous 125 years? Give me a break.

Are you suggesting that African Americans are too stupid to know political history? My point, though, was that at a critical moment of political realignment, the Republicans nominated a man who was apparently fine with racism, while the Democrats nominated a man who risked his political career and his party’s future on Civil Rights. I don’t mean to bust your bubble, but even in 1964, people weren’t voting on what happened in 1876.

Anyway, you walk right into my point. We go back to old grievances of people and movements without the benefit of crediting the same of the changes they make over time? Romney is responsible for things that happened 160 years ago? If Dems have changed for the better after a frankly despicable history, then in your mind Repubs are not given the same consideration? And I say that only for argument’s sake because I think that Dems still play shameless racial politics. Obama is chief among them.

Democrats had a great deal to be proud of from the Wilson era on. By 1940, the Democratic Party was defined by Roosevelt.

At any rate, I don’t have any greater grudge against the Mormons than I do against any mainstream cult, and I don;t think that the Post article was the product of some nefarious anti-Mormon conspiracy (which is how this all started).

And, by the way, while Romney has been pretty cool, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has been playing race politics since before Obama was sworn in. Or, did I mishear Glenn Beck.

Probably not good to bring this up in a thread about a massacre committed by Mormons less than a decade later.

Any idea what their “outrages” that were “beyond all description” were? It seems they thought they were being provoked somehow…

I’m just saying, if you want to leave the past buried, don’t bring it up yourself.

tom on May 21, 2012 at 8:41 PM

I am truly shocked by some of you. Don’t any of you get it? It was an EXTERMINATION ORDER FOR A GROUP OF PEOPLE BASED SOLELY ON RELIGION.

There was no finding of guilt. No trial. No jury. No sentence. No appeal. Nothing.

What do you think the Founding Fathers would have thought?

Recall that for a person to be convicted of TREASON, there must be two witnesses to the same overt act, who can testify in court, or a confession in open court. A traitor would have more rights than a newborn Mormon baby. They included the clause “the Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.” There intention was to prevent the son being punished for the sins of the father.

Here we have a situation where a Governor decided that all Mormons would be punished — exterminated — for the actions of a few. They were stripped of their constitutional rights, which was an unconstitutional act and would have been found so had he signed it after the Civil War.

The idea that one man could sign an order calling for the stripping of the constitutional rights and the extermination of a group of people is outrageous. The notion that Progs would applaud it just shows how hypocritical and bigoted all of you are.

Which American president invented the very first propaganda ministry in the West?

Wilson. Committee on Public Information led by journalist George Creel and Edward Bernays, whose books and essays were collected by Joseph Goebbels.

Which American president had his own version of the Gestapo?

Wilson. American Protective League.

Which American President urged Congress to pass laws that forbade Americans from criticising their own government in a time of war and made it a crime for citizens to “utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the government or the military,” and signed them into law?

Wilson.

Which American president created a board to control all industry in service to the state?

Wilson. He charged Bernard Baruch with running the War Industries Board, which would serve as a precursor to the corporatist policies Mussolini and Hitler. Grosvenor Clarkson, a member and later historian of the WIB, would characterize the WIB as follows: “It was an industrial dictatorship without parallel–a dictatorship by force of necessity and common consent which step by step at least encompassed the Nation and united it into a coordinated and mobile whole.” He would also later say that the war was “a story of the conversion of a hundred million combatively individualistic people into a vast cooperative effort in which the good of the unit was sacrificed to the good of the whole.”

Which American president segregated the military and the Federal government?

Wilson.

Which American president locked up anti-war protesters, suffragettes, homosexuals, etc.?

Wilson.

Which American President sent Robert Goldstein to prison for 10 years for making a movie, The Spirit of ’76, that depicted the British in the Revolutionary War in a negative light and was ultimately responsible for him dying in a Nazi concentration camp years later?

Wilson

Which American president interred Americans of German descent?

Wilson.

Which American president actively promoted forced sterilisations?

Wilson.

Which American president screened “Birth of a Nation” in the White House?

Wilson.

Which American President while Governor appointed American eugenicist, Dr Edwin Katzen-Ellenbogen, later called one of the “Butchers of Buchenwald” and convicted of war crimes in a trial at Dachau, as the Chief Eugenicist of New Jersey?

Wilson. After Wilson finally blessed America by dying from another massive stroke, Dr Katzen-Ellenbogen went on to bigger and better things becoming a founding member of the prestigious but pro-Nazi Eugenics Research Association headquartered at the Carnegie Institution.

Which American president sought the Sedition Act and incarcerated tens of thousands of “dissidents”?

Wilson and this doesn’t even take into account the infamous Palmer Raids, which occurred after the end of the war.

Which American President said this about education: “We want one class of persons to have a liberal education and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks”?

Wilson

Which American president said that his first recollection as a child was of hearing the “horrible” news that Abraham Lincoln had been elected President and would free the slaves?

Wilson

Which American president advocated progressive imperialism in order to subjugate lesser races?

Wilson

Which American president applauded the annexation of Puerto Rico and the Philippines saying, “they are children and we are men in these deep matters of government and justice”?

Wilson

Which American president regularly denounced what he called “the anti-imperialistic weepings and wailings that came out of Boston”?

Wilson

Which American president believed that giving blacks the vote was the “foundation of every evil in this country”?

Wilson

Which American president said, “while we are followers of Jefferson, there is one principle of Jefferson’s which no longer can obtain in the practical politics of America. You know that it was Jefferson who said that the best government is that which does as little governing as possible…BUT THAT TIME HAS PASSED. AMERICA IS NOT NOW AND CANNOT IN THE FUTURE BE A PLACE FOR UNRESTRICTED INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND ENTERPRISE”?

Wilson

Which American president said, “segregation is not humiliating but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen”?

Wilson

Which American President decried the “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” that are the foundation of American government and said, “Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand”?

Wilson

Which American President said, “no doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle”?

Wilson

Which American President said, “the President is at liberty, both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can. His capacity will set the limit”?

Wilson

Which American President said, in 1913, “I do approve of the segregation that is being attempted in several of the departments. I think if you were here on the ground you would see, as I seem to see, that it is distinctly to the advantage of the colored people themselves that they should be organized, so far as possible and convenient, in district bureaus where they will center their work”?

Wilson.

Which American President signed bills banning miscegenation in the District of Columbia and segregating DC streetcars?

Wilson

Which American President appointed white southerners to his administration who introduced segregation into their previously unsegregated departments, including the postal service which was a major employer?

Wilson

Which American President said, “said that a “true leader” uses the masses of people like “tools” and wrote, “The competent leader of men cares little for the internal niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much–everything–for the external uses to which they may be put…. He supplies the power; others supply only the materials upon which that power operates…. It is the power which dictates, dominates; the materials yield. Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader”?

Wilson

In June 1917, which American President said, “Woe be to the man or group of men that seeks to stand in our way,” in response to counter protests to the fascist regime that he created upon entering WW I?

Wilson

Which American President has the worst civil rights record, according to, among others, Matthew Yglesias of Think Progress?

The Mormon church has changed its religious beliefs from the time of its founders. It no longer has polygamous marriages with large numbers of underage brides, not does it teach black people are cursed (that went out with disco in the late 70s). The church has moderated its most repugnant beliefs and has become much more “Christiany” and less “culty” all the time. Mormons have proven to be great citizens, and I don’t think anyone should hold the church’s previous teachings against them. The church still requires all member submit their tax returns to the church for proper tithing, but that is voluntary and not weird or strange at all.

I have read that quote before and considered it. It would make sense if JFK had been a STATE Senator in Massachusetts, but since he was a U S Senator voting on Federal Legislation, it is puzzling to me.

As for Goldwater, do you think African Americans even know who the guy is? He had voted for every single iteration of the CRA prior to the final version that went too far for his libertarian-leaning convictions. Besides, you think the senatorial vote of a 1964 presidential candidate outweighs the Dem excesses of the previous 125 years? Give me a break.

Are you suggesting that African Americans are too stupid to know political history? My point, though, was that at a critical moment of political realignment, the Republicans nominated a man who was apparently fine with racism, while the Democrats nominated a man who risked his political career and his party’s future on Civil Rights. I don’t mean to bust your bubble, but even in 1964, people weren’t voting on what happened in 1876.

urban elitist on May 21, 2012 at 8:52 PM

And yet Goldwater desegregated the Arizona National Guard before Democrat pResdi9ent Harry Truman desegregated the US military. But you knew that.

You also know that he had later as Senator previously voted for the first two major Civil Rights Bills, and later apologized publicly for not voting yea on the final one. He did so because he thought it gave the Federal Government too much power.

Probably not good to bring this up in a thread about a massacre committed by Mormons less than a decade later.

Any idea what their “outrages” that were “beyond all description” were? It seems they thought they were being provoked somehow…

I’m just saying, if you want to leave the past buried, don’t bring it up yourself.

tom on May 21, 2012 at 8:41 PM

I am truly shocked by some of you. Don’t any of you get it? It was an EXTERMINATION ORDER FOR A GROUP OF PEOPLE BASED SOLELY ON RELIGION.

No. It was not based on their religion. It was based on their behavior.

IOW, it was not religious persecution.

I’m not defending the order itself, any more than I would defend lynching of someone who had probably committed a crime but whose crime had not yet been proven. But just because someone was lynched does not prove they were not guilty. And just because this order was issued wrongly does not prove religious animus.

There was no finding of guilt. No trial. No jury. No sentence. No appeal. Nothing.

What do you think the Founding Fathers would have thought?

Recall that for a person to be convicted of TREASON, there must be two witnesses to the same overt act, who can testify in court, or a confession in open court. A traitor would have more rights than a newborn Mormon baby. They included the clause “the Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.” There intention was to prevent the son being punished for the sins of the father.

Here we have a situation where a Governor decided that all Mormons would be punished — exterminated — for the actions of a few. They were stripped of their constitutional rights, which was an unconstitutional act and would have been found so had he signed it after the Civil War.

The idea that one man could sign an order calling for the stripping of the constitutional rights and the extermination of a group of people is outrageous. The notion that Progs would applaud it just shows how hypocritical and bigoted all of you are.

Resist We Much on May 21, 2012 at 8:57 PM

You’re mistaken in your presumption. This order had nothing to do with criminal convictions or due process. It was issued after the Missouri State Guard had clashed with a group of Mormons. It was a reaction against a group of Mormons that were effectively in rebellion against the state government.

To quote Wikipedia:

The directive was issued in the aftermath of the Battle of Crooked River, a clash between Mormons and a unit of the Missouri State Guard in northern Ray County, Missouri, during the so-called “Mormon War” of 1838. Insisting that the Mormons had committed “open and avowed defiance of the laws”, and had “made war upon the people of this State,” Boggs precipitously directed that “the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description.”

It’s nearly impossible to untangle who was at fault originally, but it does seem clear that there was a group of Mormons, called Danites, who justified violence against non-Mormons because they felt themselves unfairly treated, and because their numbers had grown enough that they thought they could get away with it.

This was the ugly history that is all too often whitewashed by the assumption that the people of the day were just religious bigots persecuting a completely blameless and innocent people. There was fault on both sides.

It would be well to remember that Joseph Smith was illegally and unfairly lynched, but that was after he had been legally and fairly jailed for burning a printing press that had published stories critical of him in Nauvoo, Illinois.

I have read that quote before and considered it. It would make sense if JFK had been a STATE Senator in Massachusetts, but since he was a U S Senator voting on Federal Legislation, it is puzzling to me.

Red State State of Mind on May 21, 2012 at 9:26 PM

They just weren’t thinking about blacks. According to Bobby, the only contact that they had with African-Americans were with those in service (household staff, caddies, hotel workers, etc.). They lived a typical Brookline life, except for the fact that they were Irish-Catholic. Blacks were service staff. I am not sure that they thought about them any more than that. It just wasn’t part of their world at the time.

Also, keep in mind that LBJ strong-armed the Dems in the Senate at the time, too, and he was very much against the civil rights act at the time (1957). He went along in 1964 for purely political reasons.

Also, keep in mind that LBJ strong-armed the Dems in the Senate at the time, too, and he was very much against the civil rights act at the time (1957). He went along in 1964 for purely political reasons.

Resist We Much on May 21, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Yes, facts like these take the air out of many of the progressive narratives. My point in bringing it up was meant to be a reference to the way “History” gets warped in the telling. JFK is considered a saint by many, while Goldwater gets tarred and feathered.

No. It was not based on their religion. It was based on their behavior. IOW, it was not religious persecution.

Really? So, what did the Mormon children do? What behaviour of their’s condemned them?

I’m not defending the order itself, any more than I would defend lynching of someone who had probably committed a crime but whose crime had not yet been proven. But just because someone was lynched does not prove they were not guilty. And just because this order was issued wrongly does not prove religious animus.

“…the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description.” – Governor Lilburn Boggs, Executive Order 44, 1838

You’re mistaken in your presumption. This order had nothing to do with criminal convictions or due process. It was issued after the Missouri State Guard had clashed with a group of Mormons. It was a reaction against a group of Mormons that were effectively in rebellion against the state government.

No, you are lacking in reading comprehension. I know that there were no criminal convictions or due process. THAT WAS MY POINT. Neither the Federal nor state government has the authority to kill innocent men, women, and children. The Governor issued the order against ALL Mormons, not just against “a group of Mormons that were effectively in rebellion against the state government.” Elected officials do not have the power to strip Americans of their constitutional rights and due process, then order their execution.

But I guess it really depends on whether they had retained American citizenship when they left the country and moved to Utah.

tom on May 21, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Unless they formally renounced their American citizenship at a Federal building, they were still Americans. Just going to Utah would not have resulted in a forfeiture of their citizenship…no more than al-Awlaki’s going to Yemen didn’t result in the loss of his.

So you admit that Nixon played racist politics. And Goldwater voted with the racist Dems on civil rights.

Are you suggesting that African Americans are too stupid to know political history? My point, though, was that at a critical moment of political realignment, the Republicans nominated a man who was apparently fine with racism, while the Democrats nominated a man who risked his political career and his party’s future on Civil Rights. I don’t mean to bust your bubble, but even in 1964, people weren’t voting on what happened in 1876.

urban elitist on May 21, 2012 at 8:52 PM

I‘ll suggest that youapparently are too stupid to know American history. What do you know about Goldwater’s view on race/racism? Do you know why Goldwater voted the way he did in 1964?

“Goldwater was a passionate Constitutionalist, who had supported the NAACP and had backed previous versions of civil rights legislation, but he opposed the 1964 bill because he believed it violated states’ rights to self-govern.”

“Pretty much everyone, including Martin Luther King Jr., Roy Wilkins, and Julian Bond, is willing to concede thatGoldwater was not personally bigoted.”

Goldwater’s vote had nothing to do with race. Either you are ignorant of his views on racism, or worse, or you are aware that he was not a racist, but you’ll go ahead and defame him as though he was some sort of one anyway. Which is it?

Prezzy Just Words will never send the check back to Maher. There was a lot of bad stuff done to and by the Mormons since their inception. It’s all part of the history of this country, and shouldn’t disqualify anyone today from being president. Lying about the place of your birth to the point that no one is exactly sure about it is another story.

No, you are lacking in reading comprehension. I know that there were no criminal convictions or due process. THAT WAS MY POINT. Neither the Federal nor state government has the authority to kill innocent men, women, and children. The Governor issued the order against ALL Mormons, not just against “a group of Mormons that were effectively in rebellion against the state government.” Elected officials do not have the power to strip Americans of their constitutional rights and due process, then order their execution.

Resist We Much on May 21, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Did the Taliban get deprived of due process when they died in war?

No, because they weren’t accused of crimes.

This was effectively treated as a military action to drive out a group of people who had rebelled not just against the state government, but in violence against their own neighbors. There were no executions. But there was the use of deadly force against those who resisted with armed force.

It was an extraordinary action to deal with an extraordinary problem. It was not religious persecution.

Overreaction? I’m sure.

But in fact, it doesn’t really matter what the motivation was in the first place. Once you had a big enough problem with domestic violence to justify calling out the State Guard, and rather than submit the Mormons fought the State Guard, the escalation was probably inevitable.

As I said, if the order would have been signed after the 14th Amendment, it would have been held unconstitutional without a doubt. I will also remind you that not even the President of the United States can strip an American citizen of his habeas corpus rights. See: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

The Governor of Missouri did not have the right to expel a group of people from the state. He could arrest those accused of crimes. He could no more drive out Mormons than he could send all women over 40 to convents. He did not have the power to decide who could live in the state. He only had the power to prosecute those that were accused of committing crimes.

The Mormon church has changed its religious beliefs from the time of its founders. It no longer has polygamous marriages with large numbers of underage brides, not does it teach black people are cursed (that went out with disco in the late 70s). The church has moderated its most repugnant beliefs and has become much more “Christiany” and less “culty” all the time. Mormons have proven to be great citizens, and I don’t think anyone should hold the church’s previous teachings against them. The church still requires all member submit their tax returns to the church for proper tithing, but that is voluntary and not weird or strange at all.

ZippyZ on May 21, 2012 at 9:08 PM

I guess it depends on what you mean by, “I don’t think anyone should hold the church’s previous teachings against them.”

Joseph Smith said the BoM was “the most correct of any book on Earth” – I gather something got lost in the translation between God and JS somewhere, because, as you mentioned, the BoM has changed over time (3900+ corrections so far – Joseph Smith’s laughably cruddy English skills being but one of the reasons for that astronomical total!).

Considering those changes, please excuse those of us who giggle everytime we hear LDS dogma from the BoM presented as divine Truth! :)

Prezzy Just Words will never send the check back to Maher. There was a lot of bad stuff done to and by the Mormons since their inception. It’s all part of the history of this country, and shouldn’t disqualify anyone today from being president. Lying about the place of your birth to the point that no one is exactly sure about it is another story.

Hawaii has rejected Arizona’s request for a simple e-mail verifying that what is on the .pdf 0bama released as a “birth certificate” matches Hawaii’s records, and has told Arizona to prove that they really need the verification, despite clear Hawaii policy that Arizona’s request is acceptable under Hawaii guidelines, or to go get stuffed.

You wouldn’t know that from the deceptive Drudge headline unless you actually read the story it linked to.

The Drudge headline, if following impartial journalistic standards, should have read, “Hawaii rejects Arizona’a request.”

No, I would not refer to Mormons of that period as Americans. They did not consider themselves as such. They wanted to be apart from American society and free from it’s laws- which is why they kept moving West where they planned to create their own state.

When they realized they were no match for against the strength of the US Army, except for ambushing and slaughtering smaller patrols, only then did they begin having new “revelations” about changing their teachings to be more in sync with US Penal Codes concerning proper behaviour.

Some Mormons had such contempt for the US that they left the country and settled in Mexico. Only to suddenly rediscover their love for America as they were chased out, literally at gunpoint, at the beginning of the Mexican Revolution.

Mitt Romney is descended from these Mormons who, valuing the commands of the charlatan Joseph Smith over US citizenship, renounced America and settled Mexico.

Resist We Much is proving it on this thread- Mormons still feel a grudge against this country for the indignities which they feel they suffered at the hands of it’s people over a century ago.

From the amount of times I’ve heard Mormons today still excusing the acts of terror against Americans committed by their forefathers, still laying blame upon the victims, still blaming America,I get the impression that this view is still taught to young Mormons today and that the grudge has been passed down from generation to generation.

It’s absurd to think that we would hand over the Presidency to an elder and High Priest of this spiritually and culturally ghettoized sectarian minority.

It was an extraordinary action to deal with an extraordinary problem. It was not religious persecution.

tom on May 21, 2012 at 10:07 PM

It wasn’t? What leads you to that conclusion?

With all of the anti-Mormonism there was in the 1800s, hearing you say that religious persecution wasn’t involved sounds exactly how Kirsten Powers does when she says it’s wrong to call 0bamessiah a fascist/socialist/Communist/statist/authoritarian because there’s no evidence to support it.

It would be well to remember that Joseph Smith was illegally and unfairly lynched, but that was after he had been legally and fairly jailed for burning a printing press that had published stories critical of him in Nauvoo, Illinois.

tom on May 21, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Ummm, tom, Joseph Smith waslynched, beated, tared and feathered without ever being jailed. And since when are people in the US “legaly and fairly” lynched or punished at all for simply being “legally and fairly” jailed? After Joseph Smith was assasinated, the case ofthe burning down the Expositor went to court and all the accused wre aquitted of any and all wrong doing. The LDS Church then became in a strong position to sue the state of Illinois for damages. Governor Ford broke his promise to Joseph Smith offering him him personal protection while in jail but instead left with many of his troops immediately after Smith was “legally and fairly” jailed. The LDS Church could have also sued for damages to its properties by the mobs but instead chose not to pursue any legal action against the state. This was in hopes to pursue peace with the state. The mormons soon after went into self exile and the Nauvoo Temple was burned to the ground.

Resist We Much is proving it on this thread- Mormons still feel a grudge against this country for the indignities which they feel they suffered at the hands of it’s people over a century ago.

sartana on May 21, 2012 at 11:50 PM

Sure I am, you fvcking ‘tard. I’m an ATHEIST. I could care less about what the Mormons did 150 years ago or how many people Christians have murdered over the last 2,000 years.

It’s absurd to think that we would hand over the Presidency to an elder and High Priest of this spiritually and culturally ghettoized sectarian minority.

sartana on May 21, 2012 at 11:50 PM

Yet, you have no problem with handing over the role of Majority Leader for the “world’s greatest and most august deliberative body” to his fellow “elder and High Priest of this spiritually and culturally ghettoized sectarian minority.”

Gosh, I thought we would not deny anyone the Presidency because of religion. I thought it was off limits. Obama’s lack of religion is what should be discussed. People will welcome Muslims but not Mormans. My great grandfather was a bigamist and in those days, so were many other people. We did not deny him; but we would not do the same thing because the circumstances were different. Holding people accountable for what long gone relatives did is really stupid.
Utah is one of our more successful and prosperous states and a lot of the credit goes to Mormons. No terrorist attacks, no beheadings, etc but we welcome Muslims. Mitt is a fine example of a successful man with a great wife and family. He should not be held accountable for what his ancestors did anymore than my great Grandad should. Different time; different world today. Mitt’s my man because he can turn this country around and IT IS COUNTRY FIRST….put that in your bigots and smoke it!

No, I would not refer to Mormons of that period as Americans. They did not consider themselves as such. They wanted to be apart from American society and free from it’s laws- which is why they kept moving West where they planned to create their own state.

Well, they WERE Mormons unless you can prove that they FORMALLY renounced….each and every single one…their citizenship.

The applicable law on surrender or forfeiture of citizenship is Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481). It states that Americans citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts are:

1. Obtain naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA).

Inapplicable.

2. Take an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA).

Inapplicable. The Mormons were not a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof.

3. Enter or serve in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA).

Inapplicable. The Mormons did not enter or serve in the armed forces of any foreign state.

4. Accept employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA).

Inapplicable.

5. Formally renounce U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA).

Inapplicable.

6. Formally renounce U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA).

Inapplicable.

7. Be convicted of an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

Inapplicable.

All Americans and foreign nationals apprehended on US soil have constitutional and due process rights that automatically attach. They cannot be deprived of them by the arbitrary and capricious decision of a single elected official, with said decision not subject to appeal.

Disgusting tactic but ultimately a useless one. If the Dems think that playing to anti-Mormon bigotry by dredging up some long-forgotten and trivial event from the 19th century will get them votes then they truly are in desperate straits (and crazy to boot).

The Washington Post used to be above this sort of blatant bias and partisanship, but that was before people began looking elsewhere for news and opinions. There’s nothing moderate or objective about it, it has some conservative columns, but its editorial policy in general seems to be to promote progressive politics. It’s not quite as biased as the NYTimes, but it’s working on it.

Mormon history has been muddled by falsehood and half-truths since its beginning, including the Mt. Meadows Massacre. From the Wikipedia quotes here, the lies still continue to be believed.

The massacre did take place, and was a shameful result of the hysteria in the territory created by the approach of Johnson’s Army sent by Washington. Which found no basis for its mission to put down a fictitious rebellion in Utah, and returned without violence.

Anyone comparing the murders at Mt. Meadows to 9/11 is biased and motivated by malice. They are a matter of history, but do not represent the Mormon people in general nor it’s doctrine or history any more than the modern people of Missouri should be blamed for the Haun’s Mill massacre or the Extermination Decree by Governor Boggs nor the modern people of Illinois for the mob and murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith at the Carthage Jail.

Anyone comparing the murders at Mt. Meadows to 9/11 is biased and motivated by malice.

-flataffect

It’s interesting you should say that- after all, it was the “Prophet” Joseph Smith who compared himself to the “Prophet” Mohamed. But there was much in the faith of the terrorists who killed three thousand of ours that morning that Smith found agreeable.

The massacre did take place, and was a shameful result of the hysteria in the territory created by the approach of Johnson’s Army sent by Washington.

No, the massacre was the result of Brigham Young’s decree that those Americans should be slaughtered to avenge the death of Joseph Smith. There was nothing resembling equal culpability in the disturbances- Johnson’s army was sent West to deal with the Mormon fanatics who were terrorizing American citizens. And if Mormon history has been “muddled by falsehood and half-truths since its beginning”, that’s because Mormons have engaged falsehoods and half-truths in order to deceive about their past.

And that massacre is entirely in line with Mormon doctrine, as anyone who cares investigate will see that Smith, like Mohammed, was an unbalanced and irrational man who preached a violent and intolerant message which was a condemnation of all that came before it.

And no, they did not consider themselves Americans and proved as much when large numbers of them moved South to Chihuahua and stayed there until they were thrown out. The only reason Mitt Romney was born in the States is because his father was chase from Mexico.

Lol @ anti Mormon retards like SATAN-a who want this election to be a referendum on Mormonism.

Reelect Obama for national pastor!!!

Mitch Rapp on May 22, 2012 at 1:16 AM

I wanted that our nomination process be a referendum on the candidates seeking the nomination. Mitt Romney escaped the vetting, as the entire focus of that process was put on each successive “non-Romney” of the month. When did the voters in the Republican primaries first learn that Mitt’s father was a refugee from the Mexican Revolution who’s family survived for a time on American taxpayer funded government grants- let’s call that the Mormon Bailout. Most voters still don’t know that. Now it’s Romney’s turn- before we make the mistake of nominating him we should take the long look that the “better angels of our nature” i.e. the GOP Establishment tried to deny us.

And Mormonism is every bit as much a part of who Romney is, just as Black Liberation Theology and Ayers et al are a part of the pretender Soetoro- open to inquiry. The story of how Romney’s family ended up in Mexico and the history preceding that and what effect that played on Mitt Romney’s world-view as a child is every bit as much relevant as Obama’s encounters with Frank Marshall Davis.

Having “no religious test” does not mean that each individual voter, and the electorate at large should be denied the opportunity to know more about a candidates faith and how it would affect his governing. It’s not for the little Hitler Axelrod and Bumbling Boner to sit in some back room and decide for us about what is or is not off limits. I want to know everything about a candidate seeking my vote- up to and including “boxers or briefs?”.

Would you vote for a Scientologist for President without making some inquiry into that practice? Time to get real here.

The Washington Post used to be above this sort of blatant bias and partisanship, but that was before people began looking elsewhere for news and opinions.

flataffect on May 22, 2012 at 1:20 AM

No it wasn’t. At least in the 30 plus years I’ve been reading the WaPo. The only difference is that the past few years they don’t even bother hiding their bias. The attacks on Romney are a new low but it is hardly a deviation from the leftist agenda they’ve had for decades.

Who cares about the Mormons. Etch-a-sketch is corrupt. That’s all we care about. He is just as corrupt as Obama. Meet the new boss. Just as corrupt as the old boss. Take your GOPe propaganda somewhere else!

Boy! The WP sure knows how to manipulate the anti-Romney faction. We can’t even go back to the childhoow and birth of obama, but those liberul/marxist newsies can go back to a hundred years before Romney was born. This whole thread is full of stupid, gullible people. Are you sure you are Conservatives? Or, are you all excapees from second grade?

Resist We Much is proving it on this thread- Mormons still feel a grudge against this country for the indignities which they feel they suffered at the hands of it’s people over a century ago.

From the amount of times I’ve heard Mormons today still excusing the acts of terror against Americans committed by their forefathers, still laying blame upon the victims, still blaming America,I get the impression that this view is still taught to young Mormons today and that the grudge has been passed down from generation to generation. It’s absurd to think that we would hand over the Presidency to an elder and High Priest of this spiritually and culturally ghettoized sectarian minority.

sartana on May 21, 2012 at 11:50 PM

And no one else would dare to make such a claim, eh?
That is the Democrats identity politics in action.
Don’t like it. Stop doin it.